No, I do not believe Matthew. Sleeping on duty was the second most serious charge against a soldier in that era, second only to cowardice in battle.

Matthew tells us the women told the apostles about the risen Jesus and they believed and went to Galilee as ordered, a three day walk. Mark says the women were not believed and did not go to Galilee. And that Jesus appeared to them, chewed them out for their disbelief and arose to heaven. A different take from Acts. or Luke, Or John. The apologists like to take one small part of these tales and argue forever about that like a puppy chewing an old shoe.

But if one looks at the context, the five very different resurrection tales, one gets a far differing view of just how trustworthy all of these tales really are not.

I'm aware of this passage. I Corinthians 15 3-8 is quoted in my comment. It also says they witnessed him "all at once." It almost sounds like this passage is referring to an army of men, as in a militia. Anyways, I didn't offer a timeline, I just said he didn't stick around very long. 40 days isn't long compared to the 33 years sources say he lived before he was crucified. The fact no Romans saw him is my point. If he was hiding from the Romans he'd stay out of their presence. If he was truly the Messiah, who had risen from the dead, why didn't he appear to them, and prevent 400 years of Roman oppression against the Christians? And why didn't Rome know about the resurrection through the guards watching over him. You don't actually believe that Matthew passage about getting paid off by the high priests.

Acts 1 tells us Jesus and his apostles stayed in Jerusalem 40 days and was seen by many. But no reports of any reaction by the Sanhedrin or Romans that a crucified radical had been resurrected from the dead.

Acts 1

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
....

12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

1 Corinthians 15:6
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Anyhow, your argument about why Christ would just vanish after escaping death is easy to explain. He either had to flee from the Romans, or he'd made a secret deal with them never to return. Either way he'd have to leave town after saying goodbye to his friends. What I'd like to know why he vanished after believers say he resurrected from the dead for 2,000 years. According to the Gospels he appeared to a few old friends, didn't bother to meet with the Romans, (which could've prevented 400 years of Christian persecution), told Peter to build his church, and then vanished on a cloud. Why not stick around and make his church a huge success? God, his alleged father, surely could have handled a few more months without him, as he'd been without him for the past 33 years. It's not like he had to hurry home.

And where's he been for the past 2,000 years? Why hasn't he appeared to Muslims, and Jews, and Buddhists to help make the world more Christian? Where things stand now 70 percent of the world doesn't believe he was the Messiah. Moreover, why didn't he stop the religious wars, and the witch trials, and all the other violence and bloodshed in the name of Christianity? His followers thought he'dv be back in their lifetimes. It's been two millennium. Where is he if he actually resurrected?

We know that Pontius Pilate didn't want him dead, probably could've cared less if he survived, and we know Joseph of Arimathea was very wealthy, and capable carrying out a bribe. All the guards had to do was fool the high priests watching, who wanted Christ dead. Just saying, anything's possible. As earlier stated, the Gospels, from which most of your claims come, are unreliable, having been written right after the Jews got crushed by the Romans. But Saint Paul's earlier statements about eye witnesses to Christ after the alleged resurrection, particularly I Corinthians 15 3:8, I think needs some explaining. A swooned Christ is far more believable then a resurrected Christ. Just something to consider.

LOL!!

https://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html

The blood and water coming out of His side, indicates that He was dead.

When the guards went to break Jesus legs, they discovered that He was already dead and so therefore they did not break His legs (which is a fulfillment of Prophecy, BTW). If Jesus hadn't already been dead, then they would have broken His legs.

It's not possible for Him to have survived, therefore the Swoon Theory is refuted!! Also, it has already been refuted. It was refuted by the Skeptic David Strauss.

"If he survived the crucifixion, it doesn't exactly strain credulity to suppose that he would have spent the rest of his life in hiding."

It's completely unreasonable!!

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7a93a097c566128c15e7a44f34bebefb2d4375c40c46d52c824f75c948ee34a0.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/67ddf29644bea4ee01b7ac3d2b03b8535d38de09f35999b9c0d368f7a9063e58.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/289df2b44b71b0c881aa3a59d250706f209ffd4c6d4f00f257fb33ebf0adb0d3.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/32d0d428d18f9b0f2e554ac6c03871f30962a004fdd4379d2b0c7b770a407e02.png